Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

If I object to torture of rats, and I do, it's not because I believe rats have souls.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you are now changing it from """First, do you believe that performance of an abortion, where the life or both of the mother is NOT at stake, is "health care"?"""" TO entitled to health care. ???

Why have you changed it?

Do you believe women shouldn't be entitled to health care??




Oh, so YOUR rules are you ask questions but don't have to answer any....and I can see why...

I see you have to make it personal...a sure sign a poster knows they're losing...

I answered your off topic questions already..

 

No, I dont believe that. (I actually overlooked the question because your post, like all your posts, is too cluttered. My apologies. But you have your answer.)

 

I'm losing nothing. I've now established, by simple arithmetic, that you believe society owes you an abortion wherever you want one, for any reason, and you owe us nothing in return.

That's known as sociopathy.

Enjoy your unlimited free abortions!

 

Sociopathy is claiming others said something they didn't say...

 

It's not a specific point at which we can definitively, and objectively assert to be the point of demarcation between non-person and person. It can only ever be opinion.

 

So you don't say that you are entitled to an unlimited number of abortions, at any term of your pregnancy, at taxpayer expense, even if the taxpayer objects?

This is actually quite promising!

You need to look up the term "sociopathy". It does not mean false attribution.

 

What i said was perfectly clear..

 

What do liberal women give birth to?

Goats?

Puppy dogs?

Or do they start out as another species and later become human instead of a canine?

 

Yes, and sociopaths do that a lot ...obviously

 

That's like saying "how can you have a secular argument against murder and animal cruelty"

Apparently secular leftist dont have a sense of right and wrong. They need the law to tell them. Because apparently, they think that we need God to tell us.

 

Why? More than 50% of abortions come from women who've had more than one.
As a percent of total abortions, it's not like repeat abortions are that rare.

 

Idiots are those who put words in other's mouth because they dont have an argument against what is actually said.

Who said "casually"?

 

And that even includes once the baby is outside of the womb, doesn't it?
(if we want to extend that logic to its logical outcome)

 

What you're claiming is that "Women have their reasons, trust women"

 

"Lunatic" is a relative term. Almost all atheist societies prohibit murder and a "moral order" can be derived without appealing to some religious authority. The moral instruction we find in religion most certainly existed prior to religion existing - or at least prior to being codified within religious belief. The code of Hamurrabi existed prior to Mosaic Law. This is not to say that the code of Hamurrabi was not based on religious belief but, what this does mean is that codes of conduct in societies existed prior to Mosaic Law. Mosaic Law then can be said to have coopted moral codes into religious text -moral codes that existed prior to religious text.

A secular derivation for moral codes is part of the foundation of Classical Liberalism - the point of which was to establish a secular basis for giving power to some authority.

The "Social contract" construct by which "we the people" give power to some authority has a secular derivation.

The enlightenment thinkers postulated a state of nature - a time when no law/Gov't existed. People naturally form into groups. This is for social reasons but also for protection from harm "Strength in numbers".

Over time - codes of conduct within the group develop - it does not do one much good to be protected from harm from outsiders if one does not have protection from harm withing the group.

Groups that provided such protections to its members thrived better - those that did not . "united we stand - divided we fall'.

It does not do much good to have these codes of conduct if there is no punishment for violators. The people then decide to give some authority power to punish. This authority was however to be extremely limited - as "no man wants to be ruled over by another". This power was only for protection of direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. (hence why individual liberty is -as per the Declaration of Independence - ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't) Individual liberty ends where the nose of another begins. This is where Gov't power starts and finishes.

The idea behind the social contract flows out of the Golden Rule - "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you". The idea is that if one person makes an agreement with his neighbor (A contract/ social contract) that states "I will agree not to kill you and your family if you agree not to kill me or mine" that person then has what was referred to as a "moral obligation" to keep up his end of the bargain.

In other words - if you do not want your neighbor to break the contract, you then have a moral obligation to keep up your end of the bargain.

This was obviously the coles notes version but - moral codes - at least with respect to protection from harm - can be derived (and likely began) without appeal to religious authority.

 

So you think being a woman makes one untrustworthy ?

 

Why didn't you just honestly ask me what I thought about your off topic concern?

YES, I believe everyone is entitled to medical care whether they can't afford to pay or whether their insurance pays for it or they pay out of their own pocket......

No one should be limited to having one broken leg fixed because some insurance company doesn't want to pay for it....or they're poor and taxpayers foot the bill.



Calm down, there's a law that says no taxes can go toward abortions ...so you won't go broke...

 

Did you want to limit how many times a heart attack victim gets CPR ?

Or how many times a person can get a broken bone fixed??

 

Liberals give birth to human children. This does not change the fact that you can not prove that a zygote is a living human.

That the zygote is a cell that is from a human does not make that cell a "Homo Sapiens". A zygote is a human cell .. a cell from a Homo Sapiens. This does not make the zygote a living human any more than a human heart cell ... a cell from a Homo Sapiens.

A brick building starts out with the laying of a single brick - that does not make a brick a "brick building". In the case of the zygote - it is not even a brick in the building. A zygote will never be one of the cells that makes up the structure of the human the DNA in the zygote is intent on creating. The zygote (or rather the 250 zygote clones) is the brick layer. These totipotent cells create the bricks/cells that will form the structure of the human.

A human does not start out with a zygote - the process of creation starts much earlier than this.

Either you can make a valid argument that proves a zygote is a human or you can't.

Asking silly questions does not qualify as proof of claim.

You are confusing yourself with silly questions and lack of understanding of the material.

 

Spermatozoa being the 1st stage and ovum.

It is your responsibility to read a definition.

 

And this is incorrect how?

 

Well, if republicans are in charge that is certainly true

 

No problem - already forgotten...

Really?

I have no problem admitting that I would encourage or support a woman to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Furthermore, I have no problem asserting that no one - including any legislature - should be able to force a woman to bring the seed of rape and incest to fruit against her will.

I get what you and others are saying - I'm no different - but we have to be honest with ourselves here. As I mentioned earlier, I don't feel compelled to hide behind the "pro-Choice" euphemism because I can make a moral argument for abortion, as you did in your post. I agree - and it's a fact - that women AND MEN will always seek abortions, therefore I think it is immoral to send women back into conditions that are anything less than the safest conditions possible to obtain an abortion.

Here's another fact, and it's not one that many people can confront and accept - human beings are killers. Every day we kill to survive, we kill to eat, we even kill out of mercy. Why do we lie to ourselves that we are anything otherwise, that we are some sort of angel that never existed? I hate to be so brutally honest but those moral pretenses are laughable, and they're laughable because they're not real.

 

Answer is yes to both

“Abortion” is commonly done in one of two ways. The latest is what is called a “medical” abortion and is performed in the first few weeks. The traditional surgical procedure or D&C is also a procedure used for multiple gynaecological reasons